Favre to Retire...

[Cringer]

Are you Favre's agent? How is this costing you money?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Front Office Midget

I'm sick of how villified both sides continue to be. Seeing people on the news protesting the shareholders meeting with "Favre not Thompson" shirts, and seeing people say Favre is nothing but an attention-hog... I really don't think either side is that much in the wrong.

Can I assume from this that you haven't added your name to the online petition at savebrett.net?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Are you Favre's agent? How is this costing you money?

I want to bet heavy on the Packers over 8.5 wins this season. It's much harder to do (and there's nowhere near as much value) when any adversity is going to cause half the fan base to turn against their starting QB.

[MikeVic]

Bet under then.

[Fighter of Foo]

I can't it's currently closed. Plus the Packers won't suffer much if any dropoff with Rogers at QB, confidence and fan issues notwithstanding. Over 8.5 was by far the most attractive season win bet available.

This is almost exactly the same Packers team that went 13-3 last year. Their only issue WAS Ryan Grant's inability to catch the ball out of the backfield.

So a big fuck you to Brett Favre.

[Jas_lov]

You are so right, Foo. Everyone except me and you thinks the team will suffer a huge drop off, finish 7-9, and won't even make the playoffs. But anyone who knows football knows that just isn't likely to happen. Bet the over.

It's gonna be the same team except Favre. The offense will be more conservative and they had the youngest team in the league last year! The Packers still have the best QB in the NFC North, Favre or no Favre, and the only threat in the division is the Vikings. The biggest concern is the tough schedule, but I agree with you that they'll be fine. Fuck Favre. Thompson should be focusing on getting Ryan Grant into camp and not on a 40 year old backup QB's desire to hold on to his glory years. I wish Favre would just go away.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

You are so right, Foo. Everyone except me and you thinks the team will suffer a huge drop off, finish 7-9, and won't even make the playoffs.

Yep, everyone else. Just like you were the only one picking the Packers to win after Grant's two fumbles against Seattle....

Their 2008 Mean Projection is 11-5 and everything I'm reading is putting them at least even with the Vikes in the North. Keep patting yourself on the back, though. You obviously know what everyone else is thinking.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Just like you were the only one picking the Packers to win after Grant's two fumbles against Seattle....

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Yep, everyone else. Just like you were the only one picking the Packers to win after Grant's two fumbles against Seattle....

Their 2008 Mean Projection is 11-5 and everything I'm reading is putting them at least even with the Vikes in the North. Keep patting yourself on the back, though. You obviously know what everyone else is thinking.

That rant during the Seattle game was as a frustrated fan. Everyone feels that way at some point. What you fail to mention is that I had the best record at picking playoff games last season out of anyone on this forum so I think I know what I'm talking about here.

I'm just telling you what I've heard people say about the Packers so don't you dare tell me what I've heard and read everyone else say about the Packers' chances this season. I haven't seen the 11-5 projections, but I think that sounds like a good prediction. Thank you for clearing that up, Atocep.

[Mustang]

Looks like they offered him $20 Million over 10 years to stay at home...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Looks like they offered him $20 Million over 10 years to stay at home...

Wow, the one option nobody really thought of..

But wouldn't he make about that if he played this year?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by molson

Wow, the one option nobody really thought of..

But wouldn't he make about that if he played this year?

$12M from the Packers. I'm not sure what the cap situation of other teams are if he was traded/released. Looking more and more like he will be at the Packers camp. If he is seemingly willing to be a part of the team as a backup, eh.. oh well.. roll with a $12M dollar backup then. As for pressure for Rodgers, this will be one hell of a gauge. I'm not sure how much of difference it would be pressure wise if Favre was on the sideline or if he was on a different team. He would still be overshadowed by Favre.

[spleen1015]

It would be something if his consecutive games streak ended because he was the backup in GB.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Looks like they offered him $20 Million over 10 years to stay at home...

Originally Posted by Mustang

$12M from the Packers. I'm not sure what the cap situation of other teams are if he was traded/released. Looking more and more like he will be at the Packers camp. If he is seemingly willing to be a part of the team as a backup, eh.. oh well.. roll with a $12M dollar backup then. As for pressure for Rodgers, this will be one hell of a gauge. I'm not sure how much of difference it would be pressure wise if Favre was on the sideline or if he was on a different team. He would still be overshadowed by Favre.

I'm starting to think it's not impossible for him to show up and be the backup, and the the whole "the fans will chant for Favre when Rodgers makes a mistake" is a little overrated. If Rodgers can't handle that, then Packers probably don't want him there long term anyway. But if he can succeed in that environment, you've got a QB you can build your team around.

[Chief Rum]

As an unattached spectator, the main plus I get out of all this is that one of the local radio stations keeps playing Matt Dillon's line from "There's Something About Mary":

"What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?"

For some reason, this makes me laugh every time they drop it.

[Commo_Soldier]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

You are so right, Foo. Everyone except me and you thinks the team will suffer a huge drop off, finish 7-9, and won't even make the playoffs. But anyone who knows football knows that just isn't likely to happen. Bet the over.

Why is this not likely to happen? Favre had a spectacular year last year and they would need continued play of that caliber for them to be successful again. This also assumes that Rodgers does not get injured which he has in the past. The main reason the statement is incorrect is because every year at least one team fails horribly to live up to expectations. I mean just last year a 13-3 Ravens team the year before finished 5-11. So I don’t see how you can say it isn't likely to happen when it is very possible it could happen to a team that lost one of the top players in the league at the most important position.

[Cringer]

Story I am hearing on Sirius NFL Radio....Packers offered Favre $20 million to stay retired.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm starting to think it's not impossible for him to show up and be the backup, and the the whole "the fans will chant for Favre when Rodgers makes a mistake" is a little overrated. If Rodgers can't handle that, then Packers probably don't want him there long term anyway. But if he can succeed in that environment, you've got a QB you can build your team around.

Imagine if you started a new job and every time you made a mistake everyone was saying they should bring back the guy you replaced.

[Logan]

That's called the life of a quarterback. The backup QB is always the most loved guy on the team.

[kurtism]

Originally Posted by Logan

That's called the life of a quarterback. The backup QB is always the most loved guy on the team.

Except in Indy and New England. Doubt there are too many (non-relative) Matt Cassell and Jim Sorgi fans out there

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Imagine if you started a new job and every time you made a mistake everyone was saying they should bring back the guy you replaced.

If Rodgers screws up, he is going to hear chants of 'Favre' no matter if Favre was retired, the backup or on another team. The only way he wouldn't hear those chants is if Favre was dead. Then he would hear Brohm.

[PackerFanatic]

I am sure he would still hear Favre chants even if he was dead, heh.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Mustang

If Rodgers screws up, he is going to hear chants of 'Favre' no matter if Favre was retired, the backup or on another team. The only way he wouldn't hear those chants is if Favre was dead. Then he would hear Brohm.

Oh, I can't wait for that!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Imagine if you started a new job and every time you made a mistake everyone was saying they should bring back the guy you replaced.

So what. Is it too much to ask for an elite-level profesional athlete to play with pressure?

[Fighter of Foo]

Is it too much to ask for people to be given the best possible chance to succeed? That's called good management.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Is it too much to ask for people to be given the best possible chance to succeed? That's called good management.

Favre's a better option at backup QB then what they have otherwise. The team as a whole is improved.

If Rodgers can't handle him there he probably can't handle a Super Bowl run, etc.

It's not an idea situation, obviously. But it might be the best option for the team if there's no real trade market for him.

[Fighter of Foo]

Which makes the team as a whole worse, not better.

[molson]

Well if he's playing that bad, they can put him in.

I can't imagine "chanting" making an NFL QB worse. That's just silly.

[molson]

I think the fans are going to be a little more sympathetic to Rodgers than people think. Aren't a lot of the Packers fans sick of Favre? And Packers fans, as a whole, don't feed or cherish that kind of negative energy like say, Philadelphia fans. I really just can't see them making Rodgers the subject of all their frustration.

He can be just an OK Quarterback on a playoff team and the fans will be just fine with that.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Looks like they offered him $20 Million over 10 years to stay at home...

In related news, Dan Snyder just offered Eli Manning, Tony Romo, and Donovan McNabb each $100 Million to stay at home for the next 5 years.

Seriously, is it legal for a team to pay a player to not play?

[stevew]

Am I the only one who thinks that Brohm will be quite a bit better than Rodgers.

[TroyF]

Well, we are nearing the end of the saga. In all likelihood, Favre will be traded to the Vikings or Bears for a conditional pick by the weekend. The Packers don't want Favre anywhere near their facility. They don't want him anywhere near the players. That means they have to trade him to a team he wants to go to or they have to release him. They are finally coming to the realization that they may as well as get something for him. My guess is still the Vikings. We'll see how it plays out this week.

Some of the things I've read:

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

You are so right, Foo. Everyone except me and you thinks the team will suffer a huge drop off, finish 7-9, and won't even make the playoffs. But anyone who knows football knows that just isn't likely to happen. Bet the over.

It's gonna be the same team except Favre. The offense will be more conservative and they had the youngest team in the league last year! The Packers still have the best QB in the NFC North, Favre or no Favre, and the only threat in the division is the Vikings. The biggest concern is the tough schedule, but I agree with you that they'll be fine. Fuck Favre. Thompson should be focusing on getting Ryan Grant into camp and not on a 40 year old backup QB's desire to hold on to his glory years. I wish Favre would just go away.

Thompson wishes he'd just go away too. And he will send him away shortly. All the projections have the Packers at 11 wins. I'm finding it tough to believe to be honest. The Packers simply have a brutal schedule this year. Last years AFC West cupcake schedule turns into the Colts, Jags, Texans and Titans. (for those keeping score, that means a division that had 26 total wins to one that had 42 last year with no team under .500)

Their early schedule is unbelievably difficult. This is the time Rodgers will be getting his sea legs under him. The defense looks terrific, but I'm concerned about the corners this year. Harris has been one of the most underrated CB's in the game for a long time, but he looked terrible in the NFC title game.

I also think people are being way too hard on Favre for that NFC title tilt. Yeah, Brett didn't have a good game against the Giants. Guess what? Nobody in the playoffs did. Tom Brady averaged 5.5 yards per pass attempt against them. (Favre was at 6.7, but did throw two critical INT's) Thing is, the Packers ran the ball 14 times for 28 yards in that game. It wasn't like he lost that game alone.

So I'm less optomistic than some people are. If Favre would have had a worse year last season, I don't think the Packers would have been an NFC title team. With a tougher schedule, I'm not sure they'd go 12-4 or better with Brett at the helm. With an unproven QB who isn't as durable? I have a bad feeling the Pack are going to dip into the 9-7 or 8-8 range this year.

Favre has always held the cards to this. If Thompson is able to get something from the Vikings for him, I'll say he was as successful as he could be from this entire mess. The question is how will it be perceived if Rodgers is horrible or gets hurt and the Packers do miss the playoffs? I still insist he'll have to answer for that, both within the Packers offices as well as throughout the rest of the league. YMMV.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

In related news, Dan Snyder just offered Eli Manning, Tony Romo, and Donovan McNabb each $100 Million to stay at home for the next 5 years.

Seriously, is it legal for a team to pay a player to not play?

No, I don't think it is, and if they truly did it, this saga will be concluded today. (the commish will tell the Packers that if they don't want to lose first round picks, Favre is to be released the second he signs off on the application)

The real question is if it happened or not. I can't imagine they'd be that stupid. But you never know.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by TroyF

No, I don't think it is, and if they truly did it, this saga will be concluded today. (the commish will tell the Packers that if they don't want to lose first round picks, Favre is to be released the second he signs off on the application)

They will lose 1st round picks? You are basing that off what?

As for the $20M, you just sign him to some front office PR job.

[stevew]

I thought that personal services contracts were perfectly legal. For the two million bucks per year I'm sure he will have to make a certain amount of appearences etc....

The packers may be silly but I doubt they would offer that kind of deal without knowing it would be ok.

[molson]

Favre is retired, the Packers (or any other team) can make any kind of non-playing contract with him they want. The Giants could offer him the same deal.

[gkb]

Are the Packers really a better team this year with Rodgers instead of Favre? This whole saga keeps surprising me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gkb

Are the Packers really a better team this year with Rodgers instead of Favre? This whole saga keeps surprising me.

Maybe, maybe not. If Favre plays like he did last year, they're probably better, if he plays like he did the year before, they're probably better off with Rodgers. So who knows. But the Packers definitely think they'll be better in 2009 if Rodgers starts now.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe, maybe not. If Favre plays like he did last year, they're probably better, if he plays like he did the year before, they're probably better off with Rodgers. So who knows. But the Packers definitely think they'll be better in 2009 if Rodgers starts now.

I don't know if even they buy the fact they'll be better with Rodgers than Favre. I think they are banking on the fact they'll be better in the future than they would be with Favre. We'll have to see how 2009 plays out in this regard.

As far as the personal service thing. . . yeah, any team can do it. But the reports aren't that the Packers would be asking him to be in a role like that. The reports just say the Packers will give him 20 million to sit on his ass and not show up. I think Goodall would hammer the Packers if that were true. It could set up a situation where a team could save salary cap room by essentially paying a player to retire than be on the books. The Packers aren't in salary cap hell right now, but a team that would be could pay someone to retire so their cap number doesn't hit them for the next year. (for the record, once Favre comes back and the 24 hours pass, the Packers will have over 11 million added to their cap number. (a little over 1 million was already there for Favre)

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by gkb

Are the Packers really a better team this year with Rodgers instead of Favre? This whole saga keeps surprising me.

That is the $64,000 question.

Their major mistake is having coming out weeks ago going 'Aaron's our QB.. Aaron's our QB..' That left them nowhere to go. Given that it is a young team, I think most of the younger players probably bonded better with Rodgers than Favre so it would not surprise me that the Packers going back on their word and removing Aaron might be best from a public standpoint, but probably not a team standpoint.

Releasing him might be the best from a PR/Team standpoint (just to make it go away), but not the best from a business standpoint. (He does have value)

That's why this thing has dragged on. There is no right thing to do that won't have a negative impact.

[Fighter of Foo]

The right thing would have been for Favre to make up his fucking mind back in April.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The right thing would have been for Favre to make up his fucking mind back in April.

Yeah or to stop being a douche the last 4 offseasons before. I doubt they take Rodgers if they knew he would play so much longer. Now they've basically wasted that first for the last 3 years.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The right thing would have been for Favre to make up his fucking mind back in April.

I'm much less hard on Favre than anyone else here on that. I don't like what he did, but he isn't the first and won't be the last athlete to do this. He changed his mind a few months later. Now he's a scumbag?

Hate the guy or love the guy, he's earned a little respect for his accomplishments. From the start of the 16 game season in 1978 through 1991, the Packers won 9 or more games one time in 14 years.

From 1992 through last year the Packers won 9 or more games 13 times in 16 seasons.

Favre wasn't the only guy who turned the team around. (some DL named White or something had a little to do with it too) But he was a huge part of it. (starting 250 straight games makes him kind of a big part of it)

So he made a mistake and retired too soon. Than when he changed his mind it made it difficult for the Packers braintrust. Boo Hoo. Manny is making about 20 million a year to not run out ground ball right now. Michael Vick is in a federal prison on dogfighting charges. Yet we treat Favre in the same context as those guys? He made a mistake. It was a bad mistake. But it isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be either.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yeah or to stop being a douche the last 4 offseasons before. I doubt they take Rodgers if they knew he would play so much longer. Now they've basically wasted that first for the last 3 years.

Ding ding ding ding ding! He teased them for years, finally decided to retire after all, then changed his mind. This is not something that is only 6 months in the making.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yeah or to stop being a douche the last 4 offseasons before. I doubt they take Rodgers if they knew he would play so much longer. Now they've basically wasted that first for the last 3 years.

They could have gotten a hell of a kicker with that pick!

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Ding ding ding ding ding! He teased them for years, finally decided to retire after all, then changed his mind. This is not something that is only 6 months in the making.

If Rodgers is the real deal (and they are banking that he is the real deal), they didn't waste the pick at all. Rodgers will use the time he sat on the bench and will become a better player for having watched Favre the last few years. (Rodgers was the 24th pick in the draft the year Alex Smith was #1, he's more highly thought of now than when he was drafted, which is kind of funny in a way)

I don't think the Packers were actively looking for Favre's replacement. I think Rodgers just slipped down to the point they thought he was too good to pass up. I don't think the pick was wasted at all.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm much less hard on Favre than anyone else here on that. I don't like what he did, but he isn't the first and won't be the last athlete to do this. He changed his mind a few months later. Now he's a scumbag?

Didn't say or imply that at all

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

If Rodgers is the real deal (and they are banking that he is the real deal), they didn't waste the pick at all. Rodgers will use the time he sat on the bench and will become a better player for having watched Favre the last few years. (Rodgers was the 24th pick in the draft the year Alex Smith was #1, he's more highly thought of now than when he was drafted, which is kind of funny in a way)

I don't think the Packers were actively looking for Favre's replacement. I think Rodgers just slipped down to the point they thought he was too good to pass up. I don't think the pick was wasted at all.

Correct. Remember Rogers was a projected top 5 pick who was stuck in the green room all day until the Packers took him at 24.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

If Rodgers is the real deal (and they are banking that he is the real deal), they didn't waste the pick at all.

I'm not so much talking about the wasted pick as I am about the fact that Favre has put the Packers through this for four offseasons in a row now about whether or not he'd retire.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Source: Favre has 'itch' to ditch retirement, report to camp

By Chris Mortensen
ESPN.com

With his family "tugging" on him to play, Brett Favre has an "itch" to come out of retirement and report to training camp with the Green Bay Packers later this month, according to sources close to the team and player.

Favre has communicated his potential desire to coach Mike McCarthy but talks have not advanced to a substantive stage, a Packers source said.

The source said the Packers would be reluctant to open the door for Favre because "Brett retired for the right reasons, even though I know his family is tugging on him [to play]."

Another source conceded Favre was "getting the itch" to play football in 2008.

However, Favre's agent downplayed the likelihood that the quarterback could un-retire or that he was prepared to report to camp July 28.

"As far as I know, right now, Brett Favre is retired and until he tells me something different, that's what it is," James "Bus" Cook, Favre's agent, said.

Favre was unavailable for comment. A Packers spokesman said that McCarthy and general manager Ted Thompson were on vacation.

Favre has two years remaining on his contract at an average of about $12.5 million per season. His salary is not currently counting toward the salary cap because the Packers placed him on the reserve-retired list.

If Favre decides that he absolutely wants to play this season, the Packers could be confronted with a sensitive issue. The entire offseason has been spent preparing Aaron Rodgers to play quarterback to the point where "the offensive scheme has evolved" and, psychologically, closing the door on Favre's legendary 17-year career.

If the Packers resist a stronger push by Favre to return, sources speculate that the quarterback could press the team to release him from his contract so that he could seek a job with another team. A league official said that Favre could force a decision by asking the Packers, in writing, to reinstate him to active status. The team would have to comply or release him.

"That's speculation and I wouldn't go there," a team source said. "We value Brett's legacy, we think he values it, and we'd want to protect that. Brett's a high-quality person and he's not going to push it that far. He'll do the right thing [and stay retired]. This was almost predictable, the idea that Brett would get the itch to play as we get closer to the season."

In an interview done with ESPN around the time Favre retired in early March, McCarthy predicted Favre "will have an itch to come back. I saw Joe Montana go through it, even though I was a younger coach in Kansas City at the time."
McCarthy said it was Favre who convinced the coach that retirement was the "right thing to do."

"I tried to talk him out of retirement," McCarthy said back in March. "Tom Clements [Green Bay's quarterbacks coach] and I were trying to sell him on the concept that he could still play at a high level with 80-to-85 percent of the commitment he had last year. Brett thought that maybe he could do it but he reasoned that when you cut back the commitment, you open yourself up to injury, to not being on top of your game -- which was very important to Brett -- and letting the team down in the process.

"Really, what Brett did was very honorable because the stress and pressure he feels is a direct result of the standard he sets for himself."

Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.

Mike, Mike, Mike.....if you only knew back then what you know now.